Posted on 06/21/2022 3:45:54 AM PDT by Cathi
NEZYGAR
The level of real irretrievable losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has crossed all critical levels so much that the office of President Zelensky is forced to spend about €3.5 million daily to disavow these shocks among the population and the European audience.
€2 million goes to Euronews and smaller European media from Germany, France, Italy and Poland, €1 million goes to LOM and TG channels from the Baltics, the near-political establishment of Ukraine and the CIS countries, the rest is distributed to premiums and bonuses for functionaries of the 95th quarter.
According to MI6 data, which were handed over to the European Commissioners and European deputies, the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine amount to 176,000 killed and 41,000 seriously wounded on June 1, 22, without the possibility of returning to the theater, about 38,000 are considered missing.
According to the BND and the Polish intelligence services, which were shown at a closed briefing before the NATO summit, Ukraine’s losses in killed on the battlefield, plus the accompanying losses of civilians, exceeded 210 thousand people by 06/10/22.
According to NATO experts, as well as on the analysis of the NSA, which monitor social networks and special groups of mothers-wives-native Ukrainian soldiers, the losses range from 110 thousand to 197 thousand people, where the proportion of dead and missing is 45% to 55%.
The loss of military equipment and ammunition, as well as new types of weapons and unmanned aircraft, is 73%, and the shortage of fuel and lubricants has grown to 58% among BTGs on the front line of the line of contact.
163.8Kviews
23:50
NEZYGAR
forwarded from
Image of the future
According to Nezygar about the losses of Ukraine, everything is 100% correct, even the dates, and the most interesting thing is that Ursula von der Leyen knew about this when she came to Kiev. Zelensky told her that he would consider the figure of 400-450 thousand people to be critical, and this will happen at the current level of losses no earlier than March 2023.
The BND and the NATO Ground Forces Command believe that by August 1, the level of losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be more than 268,000, and the front line will pass through the Nikolaev and Kharkov regions, and this is without taking into account a possible strike by Belarusian forces from the north.
If Lukashenka’s army is connected, the supply of theater of operations on the right side of the Dnieper will drop by 90-95%, moreover, the delivery of fuel and lubricants will become impossible for the civilian population and the harvesting campaign.
Putin has admitted he intends to reconstruct the former USSR by force. This is proving more difficult than planned. Crimea was a cake wale thanks to Obama. Even if he does manage to take 20% of eastern Ukraine, he has to keep it.
Putins 2nd challenge is his military. It’s been decimated in the first 100 days. Over 30k dead of his peacetime army. His higher end tanks and armor have been severely depleted, his air forces basically grounded, and Black Sea fleet badly mauled. Putin is now reactivating his T62 inventories of high 50% are non operational. Last article I read, he has 10,000 of these rusting in some depot. It will take half or more to be used as spare parts to make up a fighting force.
The T62 is slower, less armored, uses 25% more of logistical requirements, and can travel half of modern MBTs before refueling. There lies the problem for Russia. They want to expand to NATO countries with sub par equipment and materiel. Not a good position for them to be in.
Finally, Russia is now using Siberian troops as replacements for those lost. They don’t know the terrain plus Russia is weaker in Siberia. China has to be licking its chops at this.
Just like Russia is now a paper tiger. Russia is reverting to its WWII strategy of using overwhelming artillery to flatten its opponents prior to attacking. They have penalty to surplus pieces and argot afraid to use them. Russia has no choice, it’s army is now using B and C units. It’s even brining in Siberian troops.
Please provide a link to your statement. I have never seen anything like that.
“Putin has admitted he intends to reconstruct the former USSR by force.”
Thanks.
And, just a heads up, the 30,000 dead number you indicated is not accurate. No one, but Ukraine, has made that estimate, including the Pentagon. And Ukraine routinely and deliberately lies in most of the info they provide.
On June 1 they said they were losing 60-100 troops a day.
On June 11 they said they were losing 100-200 a day.
On June 14 they said they had 200-500 a day DEAD and up to 1,000 a day counting the wounded.
A valid question.. I thinking we may, once again, be on the wrong side in this situation.. I'm sure of one thing. Nowadays, anything the democrats are for, ain't going to be good for the USA..!
Bump! Until the big steal is exposed and those responsible prosecuted expect nothing to improve. We are being ruled by evil people. We are a banana republic. The only institution that remains from our days as a constitutional republic is the Supreme Courts which is now under constant attack.
That's the bottom line, shameful that Biden (and Z) will fight Russia to the last Ukraine male.
Weltwoche: There are several points that I don't want to leave unchallenged. You say that the Russians "simply did not want to kill very many people when they went in.” The countless attacks on civilian targets and the bombardment of cities like Mariupol, which the Red Cross described as "apocalyptic," prove that the Russians are not holding back from killing children, women, and the elderly indiscriminately. In your enumeration of Putin's war aims, you also forget to mention that Putin's openly declared intention was to decapitate the government in Ukraine, which he falsely claimed was run by fascists. He obviously did not achieve that goal. Further, you claim that "the Russians were crushing” Ukrainian forces. In truth, the Ukrainians defended themselves with determination, from day one. The Russian troops were forced to retreat and reorganize in the east of Ukraine. Finally, it is important to keep one fact clearly in mind: Putin attacked a sovereign state under threat of using nuclear weapons. There has never been a similar blatant violation of international law in the modern history of Europe.
The response to which was basically that Americans are hypocritical to appeal to international law, yet which did not address the actual charges here.
Other statements of note:
there was never any interest in Russia in...initially, in capturing, permanently occupying any territory. That has changed. The Russians now see no alternative but to remain where they are in Eastern Ukraine — to annex or incorporate those territories in some fashion into Russia, to hold the ports in the areas from which Ukrainians would normally export grain, and to retain control of 90% of Ukraine's industrial base, which was formally Russian, anyway.
"formally Russian" by conquest of an unstable country, while the premise that there was never any interest in Russia in...initially, in capturing, permanently occupying any territory is questionable at the least.
Meanwhile, he dismisses a primary argument of pro-Putin apologists, and of Putin himself, which is that of NATO being a military threat, which invading countries only serves to promote by justify the need for NATO.
Weltwoche: Russia has been saying for years that it sees NATO’s enlargement as an existential threat. If the alliance is as weak as you say, Russia has nothing to fear, has it?
Macgregor: I think that NATO is weaker than ever.
I think the United States has been confused for a long time. This government is probably more confused than almost any other we've had, but we don't have a clear, unambiguous, strategic framework from which we operate. There is no clear, unambiguous, end state for anything that we embark upon. I have watched NATO from the inside and have seen it being extremely dysfunctional.
That the United States has been confused for a long time is certainly the most accurate statement.
There has never been a US foreign policy endgame for Ukraine. Despite all the millions in military aid, the Ukrainians cannot stand against Russia, a super power. Sooner or later the Russians will have had enough and they will brutally crush the Ukrainians. The US should be negotiating a peace deal. It is not in the vital interests of the US to have either Ukraine crushed by Russian tanks nor a protracted no win war between Ukraine and Russia funded by the US.
The Biden administration seems to be hoping for Putin to be removed from power by the unpopular war with Ukraine or for him to drop dead of his reputed cancer. If this miracle should happen the US would be faced with a destabilized nuclear armed Russia who now has even less regard for any type of stable
relationship with the U.S. Biden’s policies have also put Europe under Russia’s thumb as the major supplier of its energy. Just like in Afghanistan, Biden’s policies are poorly thought out and are being decided by a factionalized cabal who are actually running the US with a sock puppet president.
I understand the points you are making. However, as someone who has followed MacGregor throughout this conflict I have found that basically he is a man of few words. He doesn’t have a lawyer personality. He doesn’t elaborate; he doesn’t debate. He usually answers questions with a sentence or two.
This interviewer in a diatribe threw six different “counter arguments” challenging MacGregor’s statements all in one question. In other words he was hostile...:-)
First he took issue with MacGregor’s assertion that Russia was avoiding civilians (which almost any objective analyst of this campaign will admit Russia certainly has.) “bombardment of cities” “Red Cross described as ‘apocalyptic’” “intention to decapitate the government in Ukraine which he falsely claimed was run by facists.” Challenged that “the Russians were crushing Ukrainian forces.” “attacked a soverign state under the threat of using nuclear weapons” Etc., etc., etc.
If it had been me I would have taken him on over every one of his inaccurate accusations (the interviewer obviously gets his info from the mainstream media and showed clear bias...:-) Let me know if you would like me to respond to each of the interviewers inaccurate assertions. He did not want to hear MacGregor’s views; he wanted to challenge MacGregor with his views.
MacGregor just addressed the last argument in his long winded attack...that this was a blatant violation of international law by reminding the annoying ignoramus that the same could be said for all of the U.S. invasions.
Personally I found every statement MacGregor made accurate with the possible exception that he rated Germany higher than I think is warranted. But, then I follow this conflict intensely. The interviewer gets his talking points from CNN...:-)
The fact that Putin changed his plan once he determined that Zelensky (because of reneging on the initial agreement and then the Bucca false flag episode) could never be trusted to live up to any agreement he might sign so Putin realized that Russia would have to stay there if they had any hope of this problem ever be solved.
The Russians have said that they believe this whole proxy war by the U.S. was a deliberate attempt for regime change and to weaken Russia. It is not surprising that once they understood that they made the necessary changes in their initial plan.
And I found the interviewer’s attempts to challenge Putin’s believe that NATO was a military threat to Russia silly. Of course it is a threat. As the Rand Plan spelled out we wanted to destabilize Russia and affect regime change. We said so ourselves.
I have noticed that keyboard warriors who are anti-Russia seem to believe that they get a vote on what Russia does. But, of course they don’t. Russia is a large, powerful nation and they will act in their best interests. Other states obviously know that and would be wise to try to work constructively with them instead of attempting to provoke them.
Never poke the bear...:-)
Soviet military strategy never really progressed between the world wars. What kept them in the war the 2nd time was the continuous supply of war material from the US. That let them use more of it’s manpower in the military. They still used a 1st war strategy of large artillery barrages followed by infantry mop up.
The Soviets understood the importance of the tank, they developed the T-34 after all, but the combination of an uneducated populace and just Russian habit kept them from evolving strategically, even after WW2.
When Stalin went on the offensive against Germany, he didn’t do so until he was relatively sure Japan wouldn’t attack and he brought the Siberian troops in to attack the Germans, leaving a skeletal defense in Siberia.
Some things never change.
https://twitter.com/Levi_godman/status/1539233594333626368/video/1
Very good Rybar (in English) daily battleground map
Russia is not winning anything, contrary to the wishes of Lord Haw Haw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.